Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Rambus has LOTS of patents besides the ones "given up" in VA, and Sammy will pay dearly on their infringement unless they settle.
Creation of delay-producing orders, and creation of uncertainty, are Sammy's game in VA.
Sammy hopes Payne
= retains jurisdiction
= decides Sammy is the prevailing party
= decides the case is exceptional, and in entering an order requiring rambus to pay Sammy's atty fees, adopts his findings never previously reduced to writing in the IFX case
By Payne entering that order Sammy hopes to prevent Whyte from proceeding on the CA case (as to Sammy) until the CAFC resolves inconsistencies btwn Payne's order and Whyte's "no spoliation/no unclean hands" order of last week
what further issues are decided in payne's court that can mess up rambus
A - I don't think the past is a good guide due to the limited issues before pain - i.e., the patents are not
B - Always worry about pain - but less this time
C - not sure what you mean
A.What have been the past historical trends after Payne has ruled?
Seems like rambus climbing purely on volumn.
I would assume after one of Payne's cleaver verdicts rambus would decent at the same rate.
B. Is anyone at all worried about the outcome for the 19th next week?
C. Is there a chance Payne could claim jurisdiction on Whyte's ruling?
The yahoo bd. had a charred water post about a mediation starting today before Ret Judge Kay, saying the mediation was set at the 11/18/05 case mgmt conf (CMC) in the AT case.
Is that right, or was it set at Whyte's CMC?
What issue in Kramer's case is going to the COA (CT OF APPEALS) - arbitration?
docrew0 - I have mostly lost $ in biotech, including a partner of Sirna Therapeutics called Targeted Genetics. The TGEN saga proves the impotance of paying attention - is the company really making progress, or just attracting what amounts to venture capital from wealthy partners.
I am good at DD once an idea comes to my attention, so I'll do my best for the board as time allows.
regards,
smd
I posted to you on yazoo
docrew0,
Mixed feelings here, want to believe the pieces are coming together, and be really happy, but too often burned to let myself.
Thanks for all your hard work.
How long have you been in SIRNA THERAPEUTICS?
regards,
smd
The "Rambus proposes" language is, I'm sure, a typo
Should read "Samsung proposes"
==============
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG'S RENEWED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE UNCLEAN HANDS ISSUE
At the initial case management conference in this case on October 28, 2005, Samsung renewed its request to consolidate the unclean hands defense in the above-captioned case with the unclean hands defense asserted by Hynix against Rambus in the related Hynix v. Rambus case, No. C-00-20905 ("Hynix case"). Hynix's unclean hands defense was the subject of an evidentiary hearing occurring on October 17 - 19 and October 24 - November 1, 2005. Rambus proposes that the court withhold a decision on that defense in the Hynix case until such time as additional evidence can be offered by Samsung so a consolidated decision can
Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 46 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 1 of 3
There is ONLY ONE GOOD REASON Whyte is sending this order now:
He's telling Sammy to get serious:
"(1) the cases involving the various parties cry out for a business resolution and the sooner matters which have been heard are decided the sooner the parties will be informed where they stand so hopefully they can intelligently evaluate their respective positions and resolve their disputes before further evidentiary proceedings occur"
JMHO!
docrew0......Thanks!
Cal,
for an expense "plug" why not use the "reasonably estimated" biz expenses of the entire enterprise, .........then $ from all other rev sources drops to the bottom line
BTW...litig/outside legal exp is very hard to estimate, but I'd just ball park it at 25% of the total OTHER "reasonably estimated" biz expenses of the entire enterprise
==========
3. DRAM business expense = $15M (couple bean counters + Stone)
I agree, but it won't be long.
When will the AT trial date be set?
==========
. I think the thundering herd doesn't
really comprehend the 1-2 punch of Whyte/Kramer since COB yesterday
OT - ANYONE SAVVY ABOUT THE VALUE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060104/20060104005767.html?.v=1
The CA state judge is "no-nonsense" and, as I posted before, he gets cases resolved.
This is just a great result for turning the pressure dial up on Sammy; they are VERY likely to settle now that Whyte has ruled on the spoliation issue and the AT case is on a front burner for trial.
Question.... can someone confirm this: Whyte on his own initiative advanced the Hynix phase 2 trial to a date in March????????????
TIA
smd
Microsoft acts on Xbox shortages http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=23511232&post=true
Will mentioned options, as in expensing them. Is that a huge hit to earnings?
Happy new year to all!!!!
Cal, factor in expenses besdides taxes.
FTC Chairman Deborah Majoras said, “Tom Leary is a gentle giant in the antitrust world. His strong legal analysis and tenacity, asserted with the utmost grace and collegiality, have made a lasting imprint on this agency. He is a true friend, and I will greatly miss him.”
During his tenure, Leary wrote two unanimous adjudicative opinions on behalf of the Commission. The first opinion, In the Matter of Schering-Plough Corporation, (Docket No. 9297) (Dec. 2003), condemned an agreement between a brand and a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer to delay the entry of a generic drug in competition with a branded drug. The case raised complex issues at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law and the Hatch-Waxman Act, which have still not been finally resolved.
Leary's Schering-Plough..........
Schering-Plough to Appeal FTC Ruling Involving Two K-DUR(R) Patent Litigation Settlements
Company Contends Settlements Were Legal and Benefited Consumers
KENILWORTH, N.J., Dec 18, 2003 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via Comtex/ -- Schering-Plough Corporation (NYSE: SGP) said today it strongly disagreed with a decision issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which reversed the July 2, 2002, initial decision of an FTC administrative law judge concerning Schering-Plough's controlled-release potassium chloride supplement K-DUR(R) 20 (potassium chloride) USP. The initial decision had held that patent litigation settlements involving K-DUR(R) complied with the law and dismissed all charges filed against the company by the FTC's Bureau of Competition.
The company said it continues to believe that the patent litigation settlements complied with the law and benefited consumers by allowing generic product to enter the market two to five years before the expiration of a relevant patent.
Schering-Plough plans to appeal this decision.
BACKGROUND
Schering-Plough holds a formulation patent for K-DUR, which gives the company the right to exclude infringing products through 2006. In 1995, Upsher-Smith and ESI Lederle filed separate Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking to market generic versions of K-DUR. Schering-Plough brought separate actions against both companies alleging that their products infringed Schering-Plough's patent. In each case, Schering-Plough and the parties settled before trial. Under the settlements, licenses were agreed to allowing Upsher-Smith to bring its product to market in September 2001 and ESI Lederle to bring its product to market in January 2004.
The FTC Bureau of Competition in March 2001 filed a complaint in Washington, D.C. before an FTC administrative law judge charging that the patent litigation settlements involving K-DUR were anti-competitive and violated the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Schering-Plough is a research-based company engaged in the discovery, development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products worldwide.
SOURCE Schering-Plough Corporation
Media - Mary-Frances Faraji, +1-908-298-7109, or Investors - Lisa DeBerardine, +1-908-298-7436, both of Schering-Plough
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/files/schering_antitrust_from_patentlyo.pdf ...for the reasons discussed below, we grant the petition for review and set aside and vacate the
FTC’s order.
# 841951 POST ON YAHOO, AND THE POSTS FOLLOWING HAVE INFO ON CREIGHTON'S SUCCESSOR
FYI: Backgrnd articles about antitrust, pretty straightforward articles about antitrust including how civil and criminal enforcement efforts go together:
www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/201436.pdf
www.amc.gov/commission_hearings/pdf/Hausfeld.pdf
I hope that all the hardworkers on this board get a chance to kick back over the holidays, and that everyone stays safe and healthy. Enjoy!
regards,
smd
SKIP - Can you comment on Creighton leaving?
For Release: December 20, 2005
Competition Director Susan Creighton to Leave FTC
Jeffrey Schmidt Named New Director of the Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras today announced that Susan Creighton, director of the Bureau of Competition for the past two-and-a-half years, will leave the FTC. The Chairman also announced that Jeffrey Schmidt, currently a deputy director in the Bureau, has been named director.
“I thank Susan for her tremendous service to American consumers through her leadership of our competition mission. She is a brilliant lawyer and a trusted colleague,” said Chairman Majoras. “We are fortunate that Jeff will take over as Bureau Director. He is a highly talented and dedicated lawyer who has earned an outstanding reputation within the Commission and in the legal community. I look forward to working with him in this new role.”
Creighton joined the Commission in August 2001 as deputy bureau director, and was named director in July 2003. During her tenure, she supervised the Bureau's non-merger and merger enforcement divisions; played a key role in developing antitrust policy; secured important changes in the Bureau's infrastructure and processes, including the establishment of a litigation office; and managed Bureau resources during a time when the administrative case docket was greatly expanded.
In the merger area, Creighton helped lead the FTC in gaining favorable decisions and relief for consumers in cases including Libbey/Newell Rubbermaid, Inc.; Blockbuster Inc.; Chevron/Unocal; Aspen Technology/Hyprotech; Procter & Gamble/Gillette; and Johnson & Johnson/Guidant. She also directed efforts in challenging consummated mergers, including the Commission's litigation in Chicago Bridge and Iron Company N.V. and Evanston Northwestern Healthcare/Highland Park Hospital.
In the non-merger arena, Creighton played a critical role in obtaining the consent orders in the pharmaceutical “Orange Book” matters, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and Biovail, in the administrative litigation and subsequent appeal of Schering-Plough Corp., in the litigation and subsequent settlement in Unocal, and in cases such as Unocal and South Carolina State Board of Dentistry.
Schmidt began his career at Pillsbury Winthrop, where he was an associate, partner, and a managing partner of the Washington office, focusing his practice on antitrust litigation and intellectual property issues. In 2001, he assumed the position of Chief Legal Officer and Chief Administrative Officer at Transora, an electronic data synchronization firm formed by leading consumer packaged goods manufacturers, before returning to Pillsbury in 2003. Schmidt has served as a deputy director of the Bureau of Competition since February 2005.
Schmidt holds a law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of Law, where he was awarded Order of the Coif and served as an editor of the Hastings Law Journal. He received a B.A. degree with honors from the University of California at Berkeley. A member of the District of Columbia Bar, the State Bar of California, and the American Bar Association, he previously served as an attorney advisor to FTC Commissioner Terry Calvani.
Information about the Federal Trade Commission is available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180
(http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/creighton.htm)
is this bizarre or what?
Rambus asks the Commission to delay until after February 2006, and then to reopen the record in a manner that would require thereafter an extended procedure of designations, objections, replies, rulings, proposed findings and reply findings. The entire time, of course, Rambus would continue to collect royalties on JEDEC-compliant DRAMs.
Is it true Payne had no patent cases before ours?
BTW...The "filed a frivolous lawsuit" in light of the Desmaris persuasion of Payne on infringement threshold is soooo telling.
=====================
Subj: Re: A Charlie Munger Moment -- part 2
By: twobyte_bus
Date: 12/21/05 10:38 am
<<Everything I read three to four months before the trial led me to believe that the bus was in the right and that it would be a piece of cake. And I took my chances with that situation. Well, we all know where we went with Payne.>>
sxk_2005:
I came to a different conclusion in the winter of 2001. Payne had a very bad attitude toward Rambus from the get go. He made gratuitous comments that were very anti-Rambus. I remember one specifically where he mentioned that Rambus won't have anything to say when trial commences because they filed a frivolous lawsuit and he'll make sure they're appropriately "gagged". Those were not the exact words but they were pretty close.
The problem started where they were whacked severely by a markman ruling before many (myself included) started paying very close attention. That markman brought the stock from 42 to 16.50 or so within two days -- it was brutal. For many, it was too late. I rationalized that the stock was still a good investment based on RDRAM alone at 16 or so bucks -- but the DOJ has helped tell the story of what happened there.
Payne is and always has been a disaster. However, he is effectively neutered as it relates to this being a good longer term investment.
His upcoming rulings may have some "shock headline factor" and may whack us back a bit (couple of bucks or so) but Judge Whyte carries the big axe here.
I HOPE we see a Rambus reply to the CC filing.
RIMM - from CTIA website
I confess to near complete ignorance of this situation:
RIM: BlackBerry service will not shut down
Research In Motion Chairman and co-CEO James L. Balsillie said the company has a "software workaround" in place to keep BlackBerry's U.S. service running even if it is ordered to end service by the judge presiding over its patent dispute with NTP. Balsillie also said the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has signaled that it will eventually reject all of NTP's wireless e-mail patents, which are the focal point of the case. NTP co-founder Donald E. Stout said NTP's case would not be undermined even if the patent office were to rule against it, and added that the judge could still issue an injunction.
The Washington Post(12/20) (free registration), The New York Times(12/20) (free registration)
FOR COPYRIGHT PURPOSES RE THE WHITE PAPER, NOTE THAT the material would be published without profit in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 (17 U.S.C. 107):
[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
RE: infringeon's FULL analysis (as set forth in his Alberta white paper)... anyone care to post it so cal can make an honest critique?
Mark,
I'm in no position to comment on infringeon's patent analysis, and never claimed otherwise; I am neither an engineer nor a patent lawyer.
Nothing infringeon has posted here as court/legal analysis, as far as I can recall, has drawn my attention.
I'll keep my thoughts to my self re his court/legal analysis posted on yahoo, but I reserve the right to challenge him in any forum where he posts stuff on which I have a background to comment.
As I told infringeon here the other day directly, I have no animus toward him.
As I've told you before, the reportage you provided from SJ was suberb. Thanks.
smd
wondering if you have revwd and would comment on infringeon's FULL analysis (as set forth in his white paper)
nothing more.
will point out the stuff in his white paper (avail for a small fee) that is good/bad EE analysis?
Q: How are judges assigned to cases?
Judge assignment methods vary. The basic considerations in making assignments are to assure equitable distribution of caseload and avoid judge shopping. By statute, the chief judge of each district court has the responsibility to enforce the court's rules and orders on case assignments. Each court has a written plan or system for assigning cases. The majority of courts use some variation of a random drawing. One simple method is to rotate the names of available judges. At times judges having special expertise can be assigned cases by type, such as complex criminal cases, asbestos-related cases, or prisoner cases. The benefit of this system is that it takes advantage of the expertise developed by judges in certain areas. Sometimes cases may be assigned based on geographical considerations. For example, in a large geographical area it may be best to assign a case to a judge located at the site where the case was filed. Courts also have a system to check if there is any conflict that would make it improper for a judge to preside over a particular case.
http://www.uscourts.gov/faq.html
ASHCROFT AND REHNQUIST GO ON A SHOPPING SPREE:
The Problem With Choosing Jurisdictions and Judges Based on Predicted Results in the Sniper and Terrorism Cases
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----
Wednesday, Nov. 27, 2002
In both the D.C.-area sniper case and the war on terrorism, top government officials seem intent on shopping for law and judges that will be most favorable to their position.
The Eastern District of Virginia, the favorite forum for terrorism-related cases, is notoriously conservative, and the appellate court that reviews its decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, is perhaps even more so. Meanwhile, it has been well-publicized that the snipers will be tried in a death-penalty-friendly jurisdiction--Virginia--and not Maryland, despite the latter's greater number of victims.
Such forum-shopping by the government, though technically legal, violates the spirit of one of the basic principles of our legal system, embodied in the seminal 1938 Supreme Court decision in Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins.
***
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20021127.html
NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY:
Please take notice that the HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE will be UNAVAILABLE the following dates:
August 25th thru August 26th; September 12th thru September 23rd; September 28th thru September 30th; October 6th thru October 7th; October 19th thru October 21st; November 25th; December 19th thru December 30th
All counsel are hereby given notice that court will NOT be in session during this period, and such absence constitutes a Certificate of Unavailability pursuant to Civil Local Rule 1-5(p). If urgency requires, counsel in any case assigned to Judge Whyte may request a hearing before the General Duty Judge as provided in Civil Local Rule 7-1(c).
Jackie Lynn Garcia
Courtroom Clerk to Judge Ronald M. Whyte
Direct Dial: (408) 535-5375
In a world of what's "right," you are correct.
Some judges - at times - will approach the application of a statute to a given situation in a legalistic, parse-the-words way, as a guy in VA knows how to do when it suits his goal.
It's not a well written statute IMO, so to say MU "can't" is probably wishful thinking.
regards,
smd
======
They can't say no to the question now, and later come up with a different answer to avoid treble damages.
I have no animus toward you, and I think you know that.
You and krf have posted about your efforts in contacting court personnel. It's as simple as that.
must be referring to infringeon (hangs out in person) krf (who calls).
island is down I guess
wishful thinking - sorry
WE ARE HALTED!